huh? are you running them from the mobo header or with full 12V all the time? cause i feel mass air when i stock my hands on my case.
all my 200mm are megaflows and they cool very well
no they are not listed but check the stats:
Air Flow (CFM) 148.72 CFM ±10% -> spectre 200
170cfm -> megaflow

Maybe your right its plugged into the mobo header ill try it tomorrow at 12v and see if its a diff

huh? are you running them from the mobo header or with full 12V all the time? cause i feel mass air when i stock my hands on my case.
all my 200mm are megaflows and they cool very well
no they are not listed but check the stats:
Air Flow (CFM) 148.72 CFM ±10% -> spectre 200
170cfm -> megaflow

Then unless i see a comparison between the bitfenix fans and the CM fans under the same conditions, I won't believe any of the numbers.

The problem with that chart, is that it's an independent review.
Try comparing advertised CFM vs advertised CFM.
Right now, you're comparing a reviewed 170cfm, vs an advertised 148.72 cfm.

If that's the case, that's 60CFM higher than advertised, does that mean BitFenix is "208.72 CFM?"
Can you link me to the review, instead of posting the picture?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BritishBob

Quote:

Originally Posted by justanewguy

huh? are you running them from the mobo header or with full 12V all the time? cause i feel mass air when i stock my hands on my case.
all my 200mm are megaflows and they cool very well
no they are not listed but check the stats:
Air Flow (CFM) 148.72 CFM ±10% -> spectre 200
170cfm -> megaflow

Then unless i see a comparison between the bitfenix fans and the CM fans under the same conditions, I won't believe any of the numbers.

The problem with that chart, is that it's an independent review.
Try comparing advertised CFM vs advertised CFM.
Right now, you're comparing a reviewed 170cfm, vs an advertised 148.72 cfm.
If that's the case, that's 60CFM higher than advertised, does that mean BitFenix is "208.72 CFM?"
Can you link me to the review, instead of posting the picture?

When I say problem, I don't mean that that particular review site is inaccurate of their reviews, or that their testing mythology is flawed. In fact, I think that's quite an accurate representation of the multiple 200mm fans out there in the market. If that's how it's reviewed, then that's the result they get.

Manually calculating and converting CFM by recording air speeds in meters per second (That's what the review site did). - When air travels from point A, to point B, it looses speed because of air friction. The farther away, the slower air travels. Is the equipment 5cm away from the blades? 10cm? XXcm? But the same test hasn't been done with Spectre Pro 200mm/230mm (They're the same blade length, just different mounts and thickness). The most you can compare (for now) is the looks of the fan, and it's advertised specs. We have/will sent/send out more samples for independent reviewers, and I'm sure the results will be something everyone will be looking forward to (myself included).

they probably didnt tested the spectre pro because it wasnt available at that time.
when you look at the chart then you see that the advertised cfm was reached by running the fan with 12V (i guess just from molex)

when you look at the chart then you see that the advertised cfm was reached by running the fan with 12V (i guess just from molex)
the possible maximum flow on 12V goes up to 169 cfm (flux=flow)

Once you have a fan running at 12V, it's at it's max CFM. You can't have the fan run at 12V @110CFM or 169CFM. It's one or the other.
[edit] When I look at the chart, that 110 I see, did not require ANY testing at all. It was provided by the manufacturer.[/edit]

"Flux max constructeur (CFM)" is the specs advertised by the manufacture. You can google each fan and that number will be provided by the manufacturer.
"Flux 12V CFM" and "Flux 5V CFM" are their testing results from their environment based on their calculated speed of air measured by a anemometer 3000.